Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Obama versus McCain (versus the rest) (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=65622)

Toddzilla 09-27-2008 07:51 AM

I think it was a decent showing for both sides.

For all the spin that Obama isn't a good debater, my expectations of him were pretty high and he didn't seem to be as "on" as he is during a straight speech.

For all the spin that McCain is a master debater (snicker), my expectations of him were pretty low, but he did a very good job IMO.

While my overall impressions were that the debate last night was pretty much as wash, John McCain impressed me as the person who would make the better legislator, Barack Obama impressed me as the person who would make the better chief executive.

rowech 09-27-2008 08:05 AM

Staunch Republican here...Obama won...plain as day. You can not overestimate what I call "calm command". 80-85% of the people have already made up their mind. If I'm a trully neutral voter watching that last night, there's no way I wouldn't go with Obama after that viewing.

I think McCain has a strong dislike for Obama and that's why he doesn't look at him. Plain and simple, he doesn't like him, doesn't trust him, and doesn't want to see him be president. I'm sure he also feels as any multi-term senator would having to debate a "kid" who has barely seen the senate floor compared to McCain.

I must say, I'm not a huge fan of McCain but the thought of Obama being president, with a democratic congress, scares me to no end. America will take its first massive strides to becoming a socialist nation. (not that it's not taking small strides already)

Flasch186 09-27-2008 08:26 AM

Side bar, Free Market Capitalism works until it doesnt. than the shit hits the fan. I love seeing the new Republican 'bailout' talk where they defend the new plan they have as being based in Capitalism. Here's an education for ya lady...if you want free market capitalism, pass nothing this weekend or next week, and see what's left in a month when the 'market' fixes itself. That'll teach ya.

Arles 09-27-2008 09:12 AM

Hmm, I thought the reason that McCain didn't look at Obama directly on is that it would be viewed as too aggressive. I have to think if McCain stared down Obama at every argument, there would be a ton of people bringing intimidation (even some bringing up race). While I can see why McCain got dinged a bit for not looking Obama in the eye on every argument, I think he had to be real careful here and it was better to be on the side of talking directly to the "American people" (ie camera) than looking like a bully against Obama.

I also take a completely different approach to these debates. IMO, Obama needed to do very well on foreign policy (just like McCain needs to do real well on the economy). These are the areas that people who are undecided aren't comfortable with and each candidate needs to better than expectation to show they can handle it. I don't think anyone who was uncomfortable with Obama dealing with Foreign Policy feels any better about that after the debate.

Same goes for McCain in the economic debate. If he just goes out there on the defensive and simply blocks Obama's shots, he won't convince undecideds that he can handle the economy. The elephant in the room may be the fact that foreign policy may not be that important to people in this election with the uncertainty around the economy. So, even if McCain had a knockout (and I would say it's closer to a win via the scorecard), I really think this climate is helping Obama and he's still in the catbird seat looking forward.

Flasch186 09-27-2008 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1844893)
I don't think anyone who was uncomfortable with Obama dealing with Foreign Policy feels any better about that after the debate.


Well apparently more than one poll this morning is saying that not only am I wrong that McCain won last night, but that youre wrong about the fence sitters especially. It's ok to be wrong.

Quote:


Same goes for McCain in the economic debate. If he just goes out there on the defensive and simply blocks Obama's shots, he won't convince undecideds that he can handle the economy. The elephant in the room may be the fact that foreign policy may not be that important to people in this election with the uncertainty around the economy. So, even if McCain had a knockout (and I would say it's closer to a win via the scorecard), I really think this climate is helping Obama and he's still in the catbird seat looking forward.

Well the only thing ill say is I was confused about the 'freeze' comment but got that cleared up. I wonder if other people were confused by it and wont get it cleared up. shrug.

gstelmack 09-27-2008 09:30 AM

From my wife, an undecided voter who watched the debate last night:

Obama had better priorities, but his plans (what few he'd discuss beyond "I have a plan") didn't feel like the right way to accomplish them.

McCain is MUCH better for our national security than Obama.

flere-imsaho 09-27-2008 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1844712)
ooooh crap, I hope thats not true. Eisenhower's second letter never mentioned resigning which McCain said it did as a pivotal point of his story about accountability.


Eisenhower's second speech, noted here amongst others, simply said:

"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone."

I believe Eisenhower probably expected to be asked to resign if D-Day failed, but this was not, technically, a resignation at this time.

However, Eisenhower took accountability, which I think was McCain's point. The fact that McCain got some of the details wrong is small potatoes given the outright lies elsewhere in his campaign.

sterlingice 09-27-2008 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan S (Post 1844869)
I really do not know what will happen at that debate. Conventional wisdom suggests the Biden should dominate, but the expectations for Palin are now so low that she almost can not help but exceed them.


I already had the previous post open in another tab to make this exact point.

The problem with Dems getting giddy over the Palin-Biden debate is that her expectations are in the crapper as it is. If she does well, or even ok, the McCain camp should just let that go as her meeting America and then never let her out except on the stump the rest of the election.

SI

GrantDawg 09-27-2008 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1844955)
Eisenhower's second speech, noted here amongst others, simply said:

"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone."

I believe Eisenhower probably expected to be asked to resign if D-Day failed, but this was not, technically, a resignation at this time.

However, Eisenhower took accountability, which I think was McCain's point. The fact that McCain got some of the details wrong is small potatoes given the outright lies elsewhere in his campaign.



Flasch should also point out the out-right lie in Obama's answers. He said that he never said he'd meet with the president of Iran without pre-conditions, but that is exactly what he said a year ago. Even his camp admitted it was a mistake at the time (that there would have lower level talks first). He then said Kissinger agreed with Obama's stance of President level talks, which is false. Kissinger clearly stated he was Secretary of State level talks.

I personally don't think either of these (McCain's or Obama's) "mistakes" or "spins" are a big deal, but they both were completely false.

sterlingice 09-27-2008 11:22 AM

Speaking of managing expectations, the Obama camp did a really good job managing them coming into the debate. For the most part, there wasn't much chatter for the last few weeks but I heard whispers about how Obama is a better speaker, would win, etc. But then the last couple of days, this whole "Foreign policy is McCain's strong point" meme came up and it changed the dynamic so that a tie (which, for all intents and purposes it was- GOP thinks their guy won, Dems are split but the polls show a slight Obama win) goes to Obama and nothing really changes.

SI

GrantDawg 09-27-2008 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 1844957)
I already had the previous post open in another tab to make this exact point.

The problem with Dems getting giddy over the Palin-Biden debate is that her expectations are in the crapper as it is. If she does well, or even ok, the McCain camp should just let that go as her meeting America and then never let her out except on the stump the rest of the election.

SI



Sure. If she doesn't completely scrub it, it will be a win. A worst-case senario for the Dems is she's bad, but not that bad. If the press then plays up how awefull they thought she was (and they will, because they are very angry about lack of access), it will probably play right to the "picking on her" idea. It will make her a even more sympathetic figure ("Look at liberal media attacking one of us!").

Buccaneer 09-27-2008 11:30 AM

Quote:

Flasch should also point out the out-right lie in Obama's answers.

Thanks for the laugh on a Saturday morning. :)

Jas_lov 09-27-2008 11:35 AM

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/2008Debate1.pdf

These numbers aren't good for McCain among undecideds. Obama prepared to be President jumped from 44 pre debate to 60 post debate. Which candidate understands your needs is 79% Obama and 41% McCain post debate. McCain has an 8 point lead on who would do better in Iraq, but Obama has a 24 point lead on the economy.

Rasmussen has Obama increasing his lead to 50-44. The first day the rolling average will count all post debate polling is Tuesday.

Vegas Vic 09-27-2008 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rowech (Post 1844877)
I must say, I'm not a huge fan of McCain but the thought of Obama being president, with a democratic congress, scares me to no end.


There will be a small percentage of voters who cast their ballot for McCain based solely on this. It's a given that the democrats will retain (and almost surely increase) their majority in the house and senate. The thought of Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi controlling all of the executive and legislative branches of government will be enough to win McCain some votes, but not enough to make a difference in the outcome.

Buccaneer 09-27-2008 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1844992)
The thought of Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi controlling all of the executive and legislative branches of government will be enough to win McCain some votes, but not enough to make a difference in the outcome.


:(

Flasch186 09-27-2008 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantDawg (Post 1844963)
Flasch should also point out the out-right lie in Obama's answers. He said that he never said he'd meet with the president of Iran without pre-conditions, but that is exactly what he said a year ago. Even his camp admitted it was a mistake at the time (that there would have lower level talks first). He then said Kissinger agreed with Obama's stance of President level talks, which is false. Kissinger clearly stated he was Secretary of State level talks.

I personally don't think either of these (McCain's or Obama's) "mistakes" or "spins" are a big deal, but they both were completely false.


I think that they ALL are. I didnt know the Kissinger statement was wrong or a lie, until you just said it....so that is not a good thing and Obama should release a qualification today IMO. Obama, already stated his clarification of the Iran thing so McCain bringing it up as if it wasn't qualified is disingenuous.

JonInMiddleGA 09-27-2008 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1844880)
if you want free market capitalism, pass nothing this weekend or next week, and see what's left in a month when the 'market' fixes itself.


Actually, I'm starting to think that might be the best thing that could happen.

JonInMiddleGA 09-27-2008 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1844992)
The thought of Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi controlling all of the executive and legislative branches of government will be enough to win McCain some votes, but not enough to make a difference in the outcome.


Then we'll get what we deserve for failing to prevent it.

dawgfan 09-27-2008 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 1845021)
Then we'll get what we deserve for failing to prevent it.

Just as we did when we voted in GWB twice.

Flasch186 09-27-2008 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 1845019)
Actually, I'm starting to think that might be the best thing that could happen.


And Im starting to think that people who think that way dont realize how 'bad' 'bad' really is.

Buccaneer 09-27-2008 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgfan (Post 1845034)
Just as we did when we voted in GWB twice.


So why encourage a repeat of a one-party government?

sabotai 09-27-2008 12:45 PM

Canada sure is looking nice these days. And I like the snow!

JonInMiddleGA 09-27-2008 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1845036)
And Im starting to think that people who think that way dont realize how 'bad' 'bad' really is.


{shrug}

The more I see the more I lean toward believing that the actual impact of not bailing out this incompetence is being overstated by a staggering exponent. Next thing I expect them to tell us is that if the gazillion dollars isn't approved five minutes ago then we'll see cats & dogs living together.

And to cut right down to it, it's starting to smell more & more like a set of rich politicians (on both sides of the aisle) looking to save the bacon of some incredibly rich cronies who fucked up royally.

GrantDawg 09-27-2008 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1845005)
I think that they ALL are. I didnt know the Kissinger statement was wrong or a lie, until you just said it....so that is not a good thing and Obama should release a qualification today IMO. Obama, already stated his clarification of the Iran thing so McCain bringing it up as if it wasn't qualified is disingenuous.



All? You need to take a deep breath. Sometimes, these things are honest mistakes (as when Obama agree to unqualified talks with Iran in the Dem debate. I don't think he complete understood what he was agreeing to at that point). It could be that McCain thought there was a resignation offered, but wasn't, and could be that Obama thought Kissinger said Presidential level talks when he said SOS level (which he clearly did).

If you expect perfection from everyone, you are always going to be disappointed.

astrosfan64 09-27-2008 01:42 PM

I still can't stand either VP. I really dislike Palin.

I thought Obama and McCain did really well. I actually feel pretty good about either choice right now. I don't think I ever felt that way. I agreed with both of them on some issues.

I think for the first time in a while, either choice might not be so bad.

GrantDawg 09-27-2008 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64 (Post 1845079)
I still can't stand either VP. I really dislike Palin.

I thought Obama and McCain did really well. I actually feel pretty good about either choice right now. I don't think I ever felt that way. I agreed with both of them on some issues.

I think for the first time in a while, either choice might not be so bad.



I'm with you. I'm not scared of McCain (esp. since he'll be dealing with a Dem congress), but I would prefer Obama for a number of reasons. I wish we had McCain of 2000, and not Neo-Con McCain of the last 8 years.

Dutch 09-27-2008 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1844712)
ooooh crap, I hope thats not true. Eisenhower's second letter never mentioned resigning which McCain said it did as a pivotal point of his story about accountability.


Fact check for reference.

"Our landings...have failed...and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attached to the attempt it is mine alone."
-General Eisenhower
The Victors, Stephen Ambrose, Page 74

Flasch186 09-27-2008 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 1845252)
Fact check for reference.

"Our landings...have failed...and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attached to the attempt it is mine alone."
-General Eisenhower
The Victors, Stephen Ambrose, Page 74


exactly, thanks. He didnt say anything about resigning. FDR also didnt go on TV during the Depression. Small misses but still irritates me because they'll (both sides) not go on TV or put out in statements regarding corrections. Maybe I'm too much of a stickler, I get it, but it still chafes. Same thing Obama's Kissinger rhetoric. He should come out and release a statement clarifying.

Arles 09-27-2008 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jas_lov (Post 1844985)
Rasmussen has Obama increasing his lead to 50-44. The first day the rolling average will count all post debate polling is Tuesday.

Rasmussen came on the news today and stated that poll is a 3-day tracking poll and all answers were made prior to the debates. He thinks that Tuesday's poll will completely reflect any changes from the debates.

Dutch 09-27-2008 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1845256)
exactly, thanks. He didnt say anything about resigning.


So you are suggesting Eisenhower was holding out hope for a firing instead of resigning after publishing such a letter?

Arles 09-27-2008 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrosfan64 (Post 1845079)
I still can't stand either VP. I really dislike Palin.

I thought Obama and McCain did really well. I actually feel pretty good about either choice right now. I don't think I ever felt that way. I agreed with both of them on some issues.

I think for the first time in a while, either choice might not be so bad.

I'm beginning to enter this camp as well. I think Obama is much more pragmatic than people (esp on the right) give him credit for. He's pretty much thrown out the left of his party on delaying the tax increase, extending the time in Iraq, going pro-clean coal and nuclear and even considering drilling. His health care plan will never pass the house and a lot of his education reforms will get watered down.

I see a lot of Bill Clinton in him and think that he would be OK. I would prefer McCain/Palin, but I can't really think of one substantive area where the country will be much different if the other was in power. I think McCain will handle some of the Iran/North Korea/Russia things a little better and that Obama will be more focused on economic issues. I don't think either will change a thing in Iraq (we'll leave in 2-3 years under both) and both will do a solid job on Afghanistan.

I wasn't real thrilled with Gore or Kerry for many reasons, but I think it's different with Obama. I started out not liking a lot of his policies, but the more time passes, the more he's kind of inching over to my perspective on some issues. So, I'm a little with Grant Dawg and Astro in that I think we will be fine either way.

Now, I will still take the conservative (esp fiscal) stance in this thread and be pro-McCain - don't get me wrong. But I have no dread or fear of the opposing candidate winning.

Buccaneer 09-27-2008 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1845371)
He's pretty much thrown out the left of his party on delaying the tax increase, extending the time in Iraq, going pro-clean coal and nuclear and even considering drilling. His health care plan will never pass the house and a lot of his education reforms will get watered down.


A lot of it will depend upon Congress asserting its influence on a new president whose ties helped propelled him to office. Obama will be able to dictate some bills but he will also have to go along with bills that will be given to him by Congress. He is not going to veto anything that may contradict any of the views stated above. But in the end, we'll still be ok regardless of who is president, we always have been throughout our (once we got the Civil War thing out of the way).

Flasch186 09-27-2008 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 1845351)
So you are suggesting Eisenhower was holding out hope for a firing instead of resigning after publishing such a letter?


you cant know what he intended, perhaps neither, unless he says it outright, just like people cant intend to know what Palin meant by her speeches about "Gods war." You cant use assumption to provide an out on one side and then use assumption to argue against the other. Set a precedent and stick to it (and I know it wasnt you but others in this thread argued that you cant say she meant one thing or another when she said that because she meant something else).

Maple Leafs 09-27-2008 07:09 PM

McCain is a fighter on the ropes. He didn't win the round but he didn't get KO'ed either. It's been a tough week for him, so living to fight another day isn't the worst outcome in the world.

Re: Palin, at first I was also thinking that if she managed to stay upright and not urinate on the moderator, her performance would exceed expectations. But then again, we thought that about the Couric interview too. Anything could happen in that one. All we know is that the Republicans try to frame any attack Biden makes as sexism, and it will work for a lot of voters.

Fighter of Foo 09-27-2008 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 1845038)
So why encourage a repeat of a one-party government?


We already have one party government!!!!! :mad:

sterlingice 09-27-2008 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 1845066)
{shrug}

The more I see the more I lean toward believing that the actual impact of not bailing out this incompetence is being overstated by a staggering exponent. Next thing I expect them to tell us is that if the gazillion dollars isn't approved five minutes ago then we'll see cats & dogs living together.

And to cut right down to it, it's starting to smell more & more like a set of rich politicians (on both sides of the aisle) looking to save the bacon of some incredibly rich cronies who fucked up royally.


I'm wondering if this theoretical $250B bailout isn't just a pile of crap, too. It's not like Paulson and Bernake haven't known about this for a few months. So, they probably have been coming up with this plan for a while. They shot for the moon with "$700B and blank check" and I bet "$250B and minor congressional checks and balances" looks just fine as a fallback point.

It's something to the effect of
"I want a billion dollars for this piece of lint"
"It must be worth something, how about a million"
"Great! (heh, I just sold a piece of lint for a million dollars)"
"Great! (heh, I just bought something for a billion dollars for a million)"

Again, after reading about the way Sweden dealt with an almost identical situation tells me we should something very similar.

Also, as an aside for the economics debate, McCain's going to have to go stronger on something more than earmarks. Next to $700B, $16B is such a minuscule amount, we're starting to get desensitized to numbers that "small".

SI

Dutch 09-27-2008 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1845487)
Set a precedent and stick to it (and I know it wasnt you but others in this thread argued that you cant say she meant one thing or another when she said that because she meant something else).


Don't sweat it, scolding me for something I didn't say is okay. I'm fairly predictable. :)

Dutch 09-27-2008 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 1845614)
I'm wondering if this theoretical $250B bailout isn't just a pile of crap, too.


The problem with Republicans and Democrats joining hands is that now nobody can believe anybody.

Flasch186 09-27-2008 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 1845630)
Don't sweat it, scolding me for something I didn't say is okay. I'm fairly predictable. :)


I definitely dont view anything I say as scolding but perhaps that word means something less harsh than I think it means.

Dutch 09-27-2008 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1845654)
I definitely dont view anything I say as scolding but perhaps that word means something less harsh than I think it means.


I should've added a smiley to my post. :)

Arles 09-27-2008 11:22 PM

This is pretty chilling:

Quote:

St. Louis and Missouri Democrat sheriffs and top prosecutors are planning to go after anyone who makes false statements against Obama during his campaign. This is so one sided I can't even begin to describe how wrong this agenda is.

It's one thing if they want to keep the campaign fair for both sides, but they clearly only want to enforce the issue for the Obama Camp.

KMOV has a video report on the Obama "Truth Squads".

St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama.

KMOV aired a story last night, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are threatening to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.

http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

ISiddiqui 09-27-2008 11:44 PM

Say wha? They realize that Obama is a public figure and thus whatever false statement must be proven to be made maliciously, right?

Or.. they just don't care about the 1st Amendment (which could be the case).

Arles 09-27-2008 11:49 PM

Yeah, I can't imagine this going over well if it were two prosecutors in Mississippi doing the same regarding McCain. You would think the ACLU would come out against it. Yet, there's nothing on their site and no PRs on it. But, I guess civil liberties are only worth protecting when they involve people they agree with using the first amendment.

ISiddiqui 09-27-2008 11:55 PM

The story came out Friday... give 'em time.

ISiddiqui 09-27-2008 11:57 PM

After all:

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Republican Candidates' Right to Political Speech

Quote:

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced today that it successfully obtained a court order dismissing a libel suit filed against the Piscataway Republican Organization and its recent slate of candidates for township offices. The lawsuit against the Republicans was filed by the Piscataway Democratic Organization and centered on language used on campaign billboards and fliers.

"Free political speech is a founding American belief," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "The way to fight speech that you don't like or don't think is accurate is to speak out yourself, not to silence or suppress what others say."

During the November 2004 elections, the Piscataway Republican Organization erected a billboard stating: "Bribery. Corruption. Indictment. Had Enough?" with a picture of a broom. The sign then urged viewers to vote for the Republican slate for township mayor and council.

The Democratic incumbents asked that the signs be removed. The Republicans refused. The Democrats then filed suit for libel, claiming that the sign implied that they, as individuals, were guilty of bribery and corruption. Although the entire Piscataway Democratic slate of candidates won in the November elections, they refused to dismiss the lawsuit.

On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, Judge Yolanda Ciccone granted the ACLU of New Jersey's motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on the fact that the ad contained protected, non-libelous speech. The ACLU of New Jersey's brief explained that the ad was political rhetoric, and did not direct allegations at a particular individual; rather, it was impersonal criticism of a government administration.

"Political discourse should be uninhibited and this was political speech in its most basic form," said Frank Corrado of Barry Corrado Grassi & Gibson, the ACLU of New Jersey's cooperating attorney in the case. "The candidates had the right to comment on the political climate as they saw it and to ask voters to remove the incumbents to change the status quo."

The case is Piscataway Democratic Organization, et al. v. Piscataway Republican Organization, et al. It was filed in New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County



DaddyTorgo 09-28-2008 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1845749)
The story came out Friday... give 'em time.


+1

I'm pretty sure they don't work weekends.

Arles - are you going to eat your words when the ACLU does step up in this case? Or are you going to try to spin it like they stepped up reluctantly because of some pressure or whatever?

Arles 09-28-2008 12:46 AM

I will give the ACLU a ton of credit if they come out against this action in St. Louis. Here's hoping we hear from them early next week.

Flasch186 09-28-2008 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1845723)


Well, I do hate 527's so perhaps they do deserve to be burned, on both sides. However, this is ridiculous.

BrianD 09-28-2008 07:35 AM

Quote:

St. Louis and Missouri Democrat sheriffs and top prosecutors are planning to go after anyone who makes false statements against Obama during his campaign. This is so one sided I can't even begin to describe how wrong this agenda is.

It's one thing if they want to keep the campaign fair for both sides, but they clearly only want to enforce the issue for the Obama Camp.

KMOV has a video report on the Obama "Truth Squads".

St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama.

KMOV aired a story last night, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are threatening to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.

Nice.

JPhillips 09-28-2008 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1845723)


The video had nothing about libel charges. Is there a source for that?

Galaril 09-28-2008 10:42 AM

For anyone who cares and didn't see it the SNL skit Tina fEY AS palin again getting interviewed by Kouric . Funny stuff and fairly accaurate.

linl:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_129956.html

Arles 09-28-2008 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1845809)
The video had nothing about libel charges. Is there a source for that?

KMOV had three different video clips of it. But the one clip I posted alone is very chilling. Setting up a "truth squad" made up of prosecutors, Sherrifs and other law enforcement to intimidate dissent is quite remarkable. Plus, in the video, they say they are going to "take action" against people criticizing Obama. Now, if an active DA says they will "take action", the assumption is that some kind of criminal charges will be filed. This is intimidation pure and simple and this crew should be punished.

Plus, here's the tagline on the video clip I posted:

Quote:

The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.
Wow, this is almost "Nazi-esque". If the Obama campaign did indeed ask law enforcement to do this, they should be held to task as well. It would be nice if someone would look into this so that we can see if the extent of what this "truth squad" is intimidating people.

Flasch186 09-28-2008 11:01 AM

Well that obviously will not happen. No one, left or right (i hope) would stand for that in either campaign. I'd love to see who in the campaign asked for that.

Where was the decrying though when W did things that we're executed and "nazi-esque"...For another thread I know but I'd love to have seen you (and you may have) skewering their tamping down of civil liberties.

either way, both are bad and wrong.

JPhillips 09-28-2008 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1845853)
KMOV had three different video clips of it. But the one clip I posted alone is very chilling. Setting up a "truth squad" made up of prosecutors, Sherrifs and other law enforcement to intimidate dissent is quite remarkable. Here's the tagline on the video clip I posted:


Wow, this is almost "Nazi-esque".


If that happens I'm with you, but I haven't seen anything that clarifies what these people are going to do.

Galaril 09-28-2008 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1845855)
Well that obviously will not happen. No one, left or right (i hope) would stand for that in either campaign. I'd love to see who in the campaign asked for that.

Where was the decrying though when W did things that we're executed and "nazi-esque"...For another thread I know but I'd love to have seen you (and you may have) skewering their tamping down of civil liberties.

either way, both are bad and wrong.


Yes, though I disagree with these type of tactics I find it ironic how Republicans are bitching about this and alot of dirty polictical tactics" the Dems 527s have started using since the Republican propaganada machine were totally relying that crap especially in the Bush Kerry election. Too funny.:lol:

Arles 09-28-2008 11:24 AM

The Missouri Governor released a statement:

Quote:

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

Arles 09-28-2008 11:29 AM

Even if no charges are filed against anyone, the intent on intimidation is set. If a group composed of two state CAs, a sheriff and other law enforcement come out and state they will "take action" on people who run ads against Obama - the damage is done. I doubt they would be stupid enough to ever file charges (esp now that all this has come out), but their attempt at intimidation is clear. It's one thing for a group of citizens to do this (I still think it's seedy), but it's a whole other thing for active state attorneys and law enforcement to be part of it.

You'll never read about it in the NY Times or Washington Post, but it's a terrible political move by Obama supporters in Missouri.

miked 09-28-2008 11:34 AM

Too bad you weren't in this big an outrage over McCain supporters using intimidation and questionable tactics to dissuade voting from people who were undergoing foreclosure. But hey, you win because you invoked the nazis.

Flasch186 09-28-2008 11:36 AM

its crap and wont fly....

You didnt comment on my statement about W's similar intimidation maneuvers.

Arles 09-28-2008 11:45 AM

I'm not a fan of any kind of political intimidation, so if W did it I think it's crap as well. What's crazy in this case is that it involves actual state attorneys, sheriffs and law enforcement. That's the unbelievable part.

Arles 09-28-2008 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 1845876)
Too bad you weren't in this big an outrage over McCain supporters using intimidation and questionable tactics to dissuade voting from people who were undergoing foreclosure.

McCain supporters does equal local law enforcement and state prosecutors. I expect these type of shenanigans from supporters of each campaign (but don't approve of them). But it gets real scary when the people put in place to protect against this type of thing start taking part. That's where my outrage is here.

larrymcg421 09-28-2008 11:48 AM

You guys have got to be fucking kidding me. That video was such a hatchet job. There was not one thing in the statement by either person that supports what the reporter was claiming. Maybe we should wait and see if there is a shred of evidence supporting what some random local reporter says before yelling at the ACLU or anyone else to respond. They also haven't responded to the GOP attempts to prevent foreclosed people from voting in Michigan.

A truth squad? Sounds like a rapid response operation to me.
If you don't think there are GOP DA's and Sheriffs working on McCain's campaign in other localities, then you're just pretending to have a realistic discussion.

Arles 09-28-2008 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 1845876)
Too bad you weren't in this big an outrage over McCain supporters using intimidation and questionable tactics to dissuade voting from people who were undergoing foreclosure. But hey, you win because you invoked the nazis.

Hey, quick look over there! Some McCain supporters did something almost as bad months ago. So lay off the Missouri police!

Looks like I don't have a monopoly on questionable debate tactics.

Arles 09-28-2008 11:53 AM

Well, I guess I was wrong in being upset about these tactics. I fully expect when someone posts the yearly "minorites were intimidated by law enforcement" story on election day to see those from left here use these same arguments:

1. Hey, other areas have used intimidation before so it's no big deal.
2. The other side has done some intimidation on other states, so lay off those intimidating voters.
3. This story is a hatchet job, you can't point me to an exact television interview with people admitting they intimidated voters, so it can't have happened.

larrymcg421 09-28-2008 11:57 AM

So you don't have a real response to what I said? Okay.

Arles 09-28-2008 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1845884)
You guys have got to be fucking kidding me. That video was such a hatchet job. There was not one thing in the statement by either person that supports what the reporter was claiming.

State Attorney states "We will take action against those who lie about Obama". Yeah, who would be intimidated by that? I mean, it's completely harmless for a state prosecutor to say they will "take action" against free speech.

Quote:

Maybe we should wait and see if there is a shred of evidence supporting what some random local reporter says before yelling at the ACLU or anyone else to respond.
The state prosecutor said in the video they will "take action" against ads critical of Obama. That's enough to show intimidation to me.

Quote:

They also haven't responded to the GOP attempts to prevent foreclosed people from voting in Michigan.
I agree it should be investigated, but there's an enormous difference between some GOP supports and a freakin state prosecutor saying what was said above.

Quote:

A truth squad? Sounds like a rapid response operation to me.
Rapid response of intimidating citizens. Quality operation there.

Quote:

If you don't think there are GOP DA's and Sheriffs working on McCain's campaign in other localities, then you're just pretending to have a realistic discussion.
Thankfully, any attorneys in that capacity for the GOP haven't come out on local news and said they will "take action" against those criticising McCain. Once again the outrage is the combination of:

1. The person being a state prosecutor.
2. The person going on TV news and saying they will "take action" against those giving dissent.

Flasch186 09-28-2008 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1845880)
I'm not a fan of any kind of political intimidation, so if W did it I think it's crap as well. What's crazy in this case is that it involves actual state attorneys, sheriffs and law enforcement. That's the unbelievable part.


as opposed to the Feds, Army and DOD?

and not once did I say what your saying is ok for the Obama campaign nor the officials in Mizzou to do.

miked 09-28-2008 12:12 PM

Eh, I didn't say to lay off the Missouri police, but until there's some legit proof that something like this is really going, I'm going to reserve judgment. If it is going on, then it's more stupid than it is shady since everyone knows it won't fly. I was merely poking fun at your sudden "outrage" over one side's potentially shady tactics and invoking nazis when the other side is equally guilty. Partisan games are fun though. I wish Ron Paul had won just for fun.

Arles 09-28-2008 12:34 PM

Again, the entire initial outrage from me is based on the state attorney saying will "take action" if someone posts lies against Obama. If that comment wasn't made, this wouldn't be a big deal, IMO.

Flasch186 09-28-2008 12:36 PM

I thought getting pissed about comments was reserved for me ;)

larrymcg421 09-28-2008 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1845944)
Again, the entire initial outrage from me is based on the state attorney saying will "take action" if someone posts lies against Obama. If that comment wasn't made, this wouldn't be a big deal, IMO.


See, in that clip, no where does either of the people interviewed say "take action". If you have a different clip where that happens, then by all means please link us to it. The only comment I see is "respond to" and I hardly think that's the totalitarian threat you're trying to make it sound like.

miked 09-28-2008 06:07 PM

But they are like nazis!!11!1

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-28-2008 06:11 PM

There's a reason that St. Louis is the laughing stock of Missouri in every election. Most Missouri residents don't even bother to act shocked when another election controversy comes out of that city. There's a reason that the city's actually LOSING residents.

larrymcg421 09-28-2008 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1846260)
There's a reason that St. Louis is the laughing stock of Missouri in every election. Most Missouri residents don't even bother to act shocked when another election controversy comes out of that city. There's a reason that the city's actually LOSING residents.


Plus they seem to have shitty local news.

Crapshoot 09-28-2008 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1846260)
There's a reason that St. Louis is the laughing stock of Missouri in every election. Most Missouri residents don't even bother to act shocked when another election controversy comes out of that city. There's a reason that the city's actually LOSING residents.


Shockingly, St Louis is urban, the rest of Missouri is generally rural. There's a reason why those country folks don't particularly care for the city folks.

If you look at the breakdown, you essentially have the Dems dominating in St Louis, with the rest of the state generally leaning GOP.

NoMyths 09-28-2008 06:58 PM

The nerve of reporters, asking politicians for their positions on national security issues and expecting that they're being given actual answers!

Link: McCain retracts Palin's Pakistan comments

Quote:

McCain retracts Palin's Pakistan comments
WASHINGTON (CNN)— Sen. John McCain retracted Sarah Palin's stance on Pakistan Sunday morning, after the Alaska governor appeared to back Sen. Barack Obama's support for unilateral strikes inside Pakistan against terrorists

"She would not…she understands and has stated repeatedly that we're not going to do anything except in America's national security interest," McCain told ABC's George Stephanopoulos of Palin. "In all due respect, people going around and… sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that's—that's a person's position… This is a free country, but I don't think most Americans think that that's a definitve policy statement made by Governor Palin."

Saturday night, while on a stop for cheesesteaks in South Philadelphia, Palin was questioned by a Temple graduate student about whether the U.S. should cross the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

"If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin said.

During Friday night's presidential debate in Mississippi, Obama took a similar stance and condemned the Bush administration for failing to act on the possibility terrorists are in Pakistan.

"Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan," Obama said after McCain accused the Illinois senator of wanting to announce an invasion. "If the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out."

McCain emphasized Sunday, Palin "shares" his view on the matter.

Glengoyne 09-28-2008 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1845914)
as opposed to the Feds, Army and DOD?

and not once did I say what your saying is ok for the Obama campaign nor the officials in Mizzou to do.

Just curious, but when did "W" authorize the "Feds, Army, and DoD" to intimidate voters or free speech?

I'm specifically looking for something that isn't a perfectly reasonable action by a seated president, especially something that was a departure from precedent.

Flasch186 09-28-2008 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glengoyne (Post 1846309)
Just curious, but when did "W" authorize the "Feds, Army, and DoD" to intimidate voters or free speech?

I'm specifically looking for something that isn't a perfectly reasonable action by a seated president, especially something that was a departure from precedent.


The second statement leaves it completely open to subjection as to whether or not it meets your threshold so actually googling and citing stuff is a fruitless endeavor.

Glengoyne 09-28-2008 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1846311)
The second statement leaves it completely open to subjection as to whether or not it meets your threshold so actually googling and citing stuff is a fruitless endeavor.


Realistically the first part, the "perfectly reasonable action by a seated president" that you should have taken me to task for. It wasn't reasonable by a long shot.

I'd still like to think you wouldn't want to hold W accountable for something that previous presidents would do.

Cite away. I don't need any stinking links. Just looking to see W using public servants to intimidate voters.

Flasch186 09-28-2008 07:28 PM

Arles statement was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles View Post
I'm not a fan of any kind of political intimidation, so if W did it I think it's crap as well. What's crazy in this case is that it involves actual state attorneys, sheriffs and law enforcement. That's the unbelievable part.

so my statement wasnt confined to intimidation of voters themselves. The free speech portion is easy, see CIA agent outing sic Scooter Libby (Edit to add that Im sure you'll disagree as to the meaning of this event or it's intimidating implications hence proving my point about fruitlessness).

Glengoyne 09-28-2008 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1846314)
Arles statement was:



so my statement wasnt confined to intimidation of voters themselves. The free speech portion is easy, see CIA agent outing sic Scooter Libby (Edit to add that Im sure you'll disagree as to the meaning of this event or it's intimidating implications hence proving my point about fruitlessness).


That wasn't intimidation. That was retribution, along with a healthy side of
"attempt to discredit". Any intimidation in that debacle was tertiary at best.

Wilson's wife's identity as a CIA employee was exposed by a leak to the press. That is a far cry from using the "Feds", "Army", or "DoD" to intimidate people that shouldn't be intimidated.

I'm not stating that W hasn't stooped to such tactics. I'm just saying that if you're going to make that kind of assertion, you should be able to back it up with an example.

Flasch186 09-28-2008 10:15 PM

and I feel I clearly did (and knew ahead of time you'd disagree hence my lack of effort to push the ball forward) in that they intimidated anyone else who'd be thinking about 'speaking out' or face the same consequences or similar. This is just one quick example but Ill skip searching for more since it is a fruitless effort to attempt to convince you otherwise, no offense.

EDIT to add: me being unable to convince you isnt a reflection of my lack of respect for you since I think youre civil but I also am guessing you showed your hand at the beginning of this line of talk.

Glengoyne 09-28-2008 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1846504)
and I feel I clearly did (and knew ahead of time you'd disagree hence my lack of effort to push the ball forward) in that they intimidated anyone else who'd be thinking about 'speaking out' or face the same consequences or similar. This is just one quick example but Ill skip searching for more since it is a fruitless effort to attempt to convince you otherwise, no offense.


Flasch. Come on. "DoD", "Army", "Feds". You made the allegation. To live up to your standard of everyone standing behind the letter of their statements, you need to be able to pony up some examples. Three would be nice, one for each.

Heck you cited three pretty specific entities that "W" used to intimidate. I'd think that you had examples in mind when you did so. Even if they aren't convincing to me, you should be able to cite them.

Frankly I didn't put much stock into your ability to produce examples that would convince me when I asked for them, but I figured you wouldn't make such an allegation without having something substantive from your perspective to support it.

Now, I'm not so sure you weren't just making an unsubstantiated statement, counting on W's unpopularity to boost the credibility. All in all that isn't very different from playing the Nazi "card". You played the "W" card.

So forget about convincing me, just give examples to support your allegation.

Glengoyne 09-28-2008 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1846504)
...

EDIT to add: me being unable to convince you isnt a reflection of my lack of respect for you since I think youre civil but I also am guessing you showed your hand at the beginning of this line of talk.


No offense taken...

Hey wait a minute. It isn't a reflection of your lack of respect of me? Are you saying that you don't respect me, but you want to hide it from me?;)

Back ot No offense taken.

Flasch186 09-29-2008 06:24 AM

it's early but did you just compare the "W" card to the "Nazi"' card as somewhat even? Im jewish, y'know.

In all honesty Glen, I truly view it as a waste of time. I could find what IMO are the perfect examples and you'll shoot them down (as you did above) as not being good examples or being an example of something else. Hmmmm, perhaps Im evolving from this thread and learning what is worth effort or stress and what isn't. Doubtful, but I know that whatever I 'prove' you'll say proves diddly squat.

ISiddiqui 09-29-2008 07:18 AM

Polls?

Gallup Tracking: Obama 50, McCain 42
Rasmussen Tracking: Obama 50, McCain 44

The interesting in both (well, aside from the gap) is that Obama is at 50%.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-29-2008 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot (Post 1846282)
Shockingly, St Louis is urban, the rest of Missouri is generally rural. There's a reason why those country folks don't particularly care for the city folks.

If you look at the breakdown, you essentially have the Dems dominating in St Louis, with the rest of the state generally leaning GOP.


So when did a population center on the west end of the state of just under 2M people become rural? Kansas City is actually the largest city in the state of Missouri, though if you add in the subarbs, St. Louis gets the nod as largest metro area.

Every election, Missouri residents get to hear about the racism going on when the inner city districts close down the polls with people waiting to vote still in line, despite the fact that they had ALL DAY to go down and vote when there were no lines. At some point, people have to realize that the polls are open 14 hours for a reason and it's not so they can bitch when they show up after 8:00 PM and wonder why the doors are closed.

ISiddiqui 09-29-2008 07:31 AM

Well, people do have to work.

And poor folks, generally, have more of a difficulty getting out of work in order to go vote.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-29-2008 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1846716)
Well, people do have to work.

And poor folks, generally, have more of a difficulty getting out of work in order to go vote.


So I hear........EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. Anymore, Jesse Jackson just sets up a press release office in advance and starts bitching about people being closed out long before the polls even close. It's a time-honored ritual of the Democrat machine in St. Louis.

Flasch186 09-29-2008 07:45 AM

Well in all honesty they should open the polls from 12:01 to 11:59 but whatever.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-29-2008 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1846722)
Well in all honesty they should open the polls from 12:01 to 11:59 but whatever.


But if you did that, you'd have to arrange nap times for all the 60+ yr. old volunteers. All the snoring and teeth in drinking glasses would likely hinder my ability to vote.

JPhillips 09-29-2008 07:50 AM

Three day weekend voting FTW.

larrymcg421 09-29-2008 07:56 AM

GW/Battleground tracking has McCain up 48-46. I really wish this poll released their internals.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-29-2008 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1846727)
GW/Battleground tracking has McCain up 48-46. I really wish this poll released their internals.


You're missing an obvious hint.....

Quote:

GW/Battleground

;)

ISiddiqui 09-29-2008 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1846721)
So I hear........EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. Anymore, Jesse Jackson just sets up a press release office in advance and starts bitching about people being closed out long before the polls even close. It's a time-honored ritual of the Democrat machine in St. Louis.


Maybe because its true every single election. Should be a federal holiday, really.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-29-2008 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1846730)
Maybe because its true every single election. Should be a federal holiday, really.


There's already laws on the books that require that an employer has to allow its employees to vote. We don't need any more laws where laws already exist. Just enforce the laws that are already applicable. It varies from state to state, but the right is there in one form or another in all states.

http://www.hrtools.com/legal_complia...jury_duty.aspx

Quote:

Voting

Almost every state prohibits employers from disciplining or firing an employee who takes time off work to vote. Some state laws require employers to give their employees a specific amount of time off to cast their ballots; in most of these states, the time an employee takes off must be paid.

Often, how much time off you have to provide depends on the employee's schedule -- for example, if an employee has two or three consecutive hours off while the polls are open or otherwise has enough time to vote before or after work, you may not have to let the employee take leave to vote during work hours.

The obligations of these laws do not fall entirely on employers, however. In some states, employees who want to take advantage of these laws must meet certain requirements, like proving that they actually cast ballots or giving their employers notice, in advance, that they intend to take time off work to vote. To find out the rules in your state, contact your state labor department.

Even if your state doesn't require you to give time off for voting, you might still have to provide time off to vote if you have promised to do so in your employee handbook or other personnel policies. For help putting together or revising your employee handbook, including a sample policy on voting leave, see Create Your Own Employee Handbook, by attorneys Lisa Guerin and Amy DelPo (Nolo). It also provides information on each state's voting laws.

ISiddiqui 09-29-2008 08:34 AM

Is Missouri an 'at-will' state? Because, you know, while they may not fire someone for taking time off to vote... they could "find" another reason.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-29-2008 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1846740)
Is Missouri an 'at-will' state? Because, you know, while they may not fire someone for taking time off to vote... they could "find" another reason.


Yes, it is an 'at will' state, though Missouri is a really bad place to 'find' another reason when it comes to voting. Missouri, since it is a bellweather and battleground state, has lawyers from both parties along with union lawyers absolutely everywhere for a few weeks on either side of the election day. There's literally several hundred lawyers on the ground on election day in St. Louis alone. The lawyers for both parties let the voting public in KC and STL know well in advance exactly who to call in these instances, and they do call in droves. I can't remember the last presidential election where there hasn't been multiple emergency court rulings on election day in the state of Missouri. It's chaos, but it's always fun to watch.

FWIW......I mentioned earlier in this thread that Missouri is the best bellweather state in the nation (last time the losing candidate won Missouri was 1900). McCain still holds a slight lead in Missouri, but the lead is shrinking. Should be heartening news for Obama supporters.

Flasch186 09-29-2008 08:59 AM

yeah cuz while youre having to sue your former employer in a case you very likely could not win, the bills get paid by....... ...... ...... hmmm, maybe it should be federal holiday. It's not really a law MBBF so we wouldnt have to worry about *more* regulation.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-29-2008 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1846751)
yeah cuz while youre having to sue your former employer in a case you very likely could not win, the bills get paid by....... ...... ...... hmmm, maybe it should be federal holiday. It's not really a law MBBF so we wouldnt have to worry about *more* regulation.


I'd be interested in hearing about the massive number of people who come to work every day and do not abuse leave policy who were fired. In my experience in management, the vast majority of people who are fired are people who abuse leave policies and are gone from their job more than they should be. People who take an hour to vote on election day don't get fired, especially in Missouri given the scrutiny that our state receives and the possibility of pro bono party lawyers breathing down their neck.

I don't think that a federal holiday is a bad idea at all. Toss out Columbus Day and move the free day to the first Tuesday of November. But from what I've seen in my home state, I believe the voting scandals to be extremely overexaggerated.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.